Still, seriously, if you can actually tell me how your arguments hold water in the context above, I would love to see that. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with the position that reality doesn't care about being liked, nor does it need to pander to my ego, or give a shit about my existence. Or, to put it another way, reality just is.

tl;dr. Any danger of something a little more convincing than an argument from wishful thinking?

xyzzy, you have a very excellent, well-thought out, and mostly eloquently stated rebuttal. If William Lane Craig, Frances Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, and others who have greater minds that me cannot convince you, then I certainly cannot either. Rather than convince you, I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

You seem like someone that is capable of discussing such things on a more academic level. Maybe we should talk more.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

BIG difference between what you originally said, and what you now want to change it to. Compare:

incredibly extravagant a display to show His power and grandeurexpressing His creativity

Not the same thing at all. If you meant to say the second, fine. No probs at all with anyone displaying their creativity (scorpions! Ebola! most creative!), but please don't blame me if your original choice of words was so wide of the mark of the sentiment you wished to express.

OK, you win. God is all about showing off. And no, not always just to express His creativity or reveal Himself to His creation. But that probably offends you, except you don't believe God exists, so why would you be offended by that?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

And that the majority of said universe is Vacuum, except for a tiny sliver of that universe that is matter. Matter, most of which a hydrogen furnaces that would destroy you body within a tenth of a second, except for a tiny sliver that is solid. Of that Solid matter, all but a tiny sliver is barren, lifeless rock. Or that tiny sliver that isn't barren, all but a tiny sliver is absolutely toxic to your lungs.

Perhaps that should grab your attention, but it won't.

It actually does grab my attention, because it agrees with what I said earlier. Thank you for your confirmation of what I've been saying.

Peace and grace.

So if a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth etc, of the universe can support life, it means it was designed for it?

DO you realize how incredibly stupid a designer would have to be to make a design that would be something like the titanic built to move one molecule of carbon?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

You can try to take credit for it all you want, but you would have a lot of convincing to do. Especially if you keep labeling bad stuff as "evil", implying that dark forces beyond our understanding are running around causing chaos.

We humans can do that well enough on our own, thank you.

Exactly - and why is it that humans cause chaos? But if there is no bad stuff, if there is no evil, then is there really any chaos? Or is it "just what is"?

Why do you expect perfect behavior from humans if evil is not involved? Without evil, what combination of our genetic differences, cultural differences, social differences, economic differences, sexual differences, familial differences and personal preferences would generate nothing but harmony?

edit: reworded for clarity. Evil me made nice me rephrase something.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Not the same thing at all. If you meant to say the second, fine. No probs at all with anyone displaying their creativity (scorpions! Ebola! most creative!), but please don't blame me if your original choice of words was so wide of the mark of the sentiment you wished to express.

OK, you win. God is all about showing off. And no, not always just to express His creativity or reveal Himself to His creation.

How does that address what I actually said there - that your original statement dramatically changed? MUCH easier to use sarcasm than to admit that - horrors! - your original statement may not have accurately expressed what you meant to say. Are all Christians as proud as you?

Still, seriously, if you can actually tell me how your arguments hold water in the context above, I would love to see that. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with the position that reality doesn't care about being liked, nor does it need to pander to my ego, or give a shit about my existence. Or, to put it another way, reality just is.

tl;dr. Any danger of something a little more convincing than an argument from wishful thinking?

xyzzy, you have a very excellent, well-thought out, and mostly eloquently stated rebuttal. If William Lane Craig, Frances Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, and others who have greater minds that me cannot convince you, then I certainly cannot either. Rather than convince you, I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

You seem like someone that is capable of discussing such things on a more academic level. Maybe we should talk more.

gzusfreke, that's very kind and generous of you. However, you haven't actually answered my questions and I really would like for you to do so.

You refer to Craig, Schaeffer, and Plantinga. All philosophers, and not scientists (why this matters, I will get to in a moment). They don't necessarily agree with each other on all points, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't tell me what your answers are, or why you select them. Further, it absolutely does nothing to explain the inconsistencies in your arguments.

If your reference is by way of an appeal to authority, then I wonder if you don't understand their arguments. Now, that is not meant as a slam, but I tend to wonder if you are not lost in their obfuscating language and equivocating between, say, some philosophical use of "possible" versus what "possibly" may happen in the real world, but is so unlikely to occur as to be practically impossible and not worth worrying about.

Now I'm not dissing philosophy per se, but those philosophical arguments don't actually prove a damn thing. They would need to be validated in the real world to actually be of consequence, and they never have been.

Now let me demonstrate why your asking about what is "possible" is special pleading designed to leave the door open so that you (theist you, FWIW) can claim - "well, it's possible and you can't prove otherwise".

Theists often tend to mangle and misuse quantum mechanics and uncertainty, so I'll use that as a base. So, one could argue that it is "possible" that that sandwich you are eating this one time, this only time, never to happen again, has suddenly transmuted into a toxic substance. So, yes, I'll allow using the vaguest possible (see what I did there?) use of the term that that's a possibility.

I suppose that it's also possible that that nice clean glass of a wonderful mixture of hydrogen and oxygen could forget how it's supposed to behave and combine with airborne sulphur to produce sulphuric acid which loves to munch on organic substances such as us. So, you'd better not ever drink water to guard against those possibilities. You do avoid water for this reason, don't you? Also, don't forget that airborne nitrogen dioxide can act as a catalyst for oxidization of sulphur dioxide which does produce "acid rain" - aka sulphuric acid. That does happen. So are you avoiding rain to avoid the possibility that one day that stuff becomes really, really, concentrated? If you are living your life according to "possibilities", I trust that you are?

But all of that is moot, and I'll explain why. If you are living based on possibilities then how are you protecting yourself from the uncertainty that that solid pavement suddenly isn't? I mean, it is "possible" that that might happen, right?

Now of course you aren't living according to those possibilities. I hope you don't mind my making a personal assumption, but I strongly think it's possible that I am correct. Yet you are trying to get us to agree to the possibility that your god, most likely your personal and unique interpretation of such, exists when in each and every other aspect of your life, you totally ignore other possibly more likely possibilities. Why is that? I really want to understand that.

That is but one reason why I suggest that you engage in a critical examination of your arguments, and try again.

My Christian worldview tells me that humans were made in the image, or likeness, of God. As a mirror reflects our image, we reflect the image, or character, of God. One of the characteristics of God is goodness. Our goodness is a reflection of the goodness of the One Who made us.

So then based on this line of reasoning, our evilness would be a reflection of the evilness of the One Who made us (Yahweh), correct? I can't wait to see the backpedaling that you do on this one.

Quote

my Christian worldview tells me that we are all flawed, none are "good" (Romans 3:23)

Whose fault is that?

Quote

...the One Who made us..

Quote

and even the good things we do are as filthy menstrual rags before a holy and righteous God. (Isaiah 64:6).

So they are a reflection of the things that God does that are as filthy menstrual rags?

Also, these..

Quote

holy and righteous

Absolutely meaningless words. These tell me what about Yahweh, exactly?

Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

Technically, yes. But it is so unlikely that we don't even need to assign odds. Because the odds say we'd be wasting our time.

The fact that you think your story is more likely than the story of the Dogon people or the Norse is mostly because the story you prefer is the story of your people. And your built in prejudices kind of distort things. Just like other people distort their views.

The lack of real evidence does not play in your favor. Since it impossible for you to show any measurable advantage to being a christian, and you have no other evidence either, not counting the feel good stuff, which can be reproduced perfectly by giving a six year old a new box of Lego's (which means you have no monopoly on things that make one feel good), you have no more to show for your god than do the Dogon or the old Norse, which means that your claims are no more valid.

So if you agree that the religions of the Dogon and the Norse were not real, you also have to admit that yours is not either. Unless you're prejudiced, which of course you are. So you can admit that yours is real, but that doesn't make it so.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In your opinion who are these others helping god create man?

The "us" is God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. It's an allusion to the New Testament.

Sheesh.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Not the same thing at all. If you meant to say the second, fine. No probs at all with anyone displaying their creativity (scorpions! Ebola! most creative!), but please don't blame me if your original choice of words was so wide of the mark of the sentiment you wished to express.

OK, you win. God is all about showing off. And no, not always just to express His creativity or reveal Himself to His creation.

How does that address what I actually said there - that your original statement dramatically changed? MUCH easier to use sarcasm than to admit that - horrors! - your original statement may not have accurately expressed what you meant to say. Are all Christians as proud as you?

What?!? I can't even agree with you without you arguing with me? TROLL!

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Still, seriously, if you can actually tell me how your arguments hold water in the context above, I would love to see that. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with the position that reality doesn't care about being liked, nor does it need to pander to my ego, or give a shit about my existence. Or, to put it another way, reality just is.

tl;dr. Any danger of something a little more convincing than an argument from wishful thinking?

xyzzy, you have a very excellent, well-thought out, and mostly eloquently stated rebuttal. If William Lane Craig, Frances Schaeffer, Alvin Plantinga, and others who have greater minds that me cannot convince you, then I certainly cannot either. Rather than convince you, I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

You seem like someone that is capable of discussing such things on a more academic level. Maybe we should talk more.

gzusfreke, that's very kind and generous of you. However, you haven't actually answered my questions and I really would like for you to do so.

You refer to Craig, Schaeffer, and Plantinga. All philosophers, and not scientists (why this matters, I will get to in a moment). They don't necessarily agree with each other on all points, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't tell me what your answers are, or why you select them. Further, it absolutely does nothing to explain the inconsistencies in your arguments.

If your reference is by way of an appeal to authority, then I wonder if you don't understand their arguments. Now, that is not meant as a slam, but I tend to wonder if you are not lost in their obfuscating language and equivocating between, say, some philosophical use of "possible" versus what "possibly" may happen in the real world, but is so unlikely to occur as to be practically impossible and not worth worrying about.

Now I'm not dissing philosophy per se, but those philosophical arguments don't actually prove a damn thing. They would need to be validated in the real world to actually be of consequence, and they never have been.

Now let me demonstrate why your asking about what is "possible" is special pleading designed to leave the door open so that you (theist you, FWIW) can claim - "well, it's possible and you can't prove otherwise".

Theists often tend to mangle and misuse quantum mechanics and uncertainty, so I'll use that as a base. So, one could argue that it is "possible" that that sandwich you are eating this one time, this only time, never to happen again, has suddenly transmuted into a toxic substance. So, yes, I'll allow using the vaguest possible (see what I did there?) use of the term that that's a possibility.

I suppose that it's also possible that that nice clean glass of a wonderful mixture of hydrogen and oxygen could forget how it's supposed to behave and combine with airborne sulphur to produce sulphuric acid which loves to munch on organic substances such as us. So, you'd better not ever drink water to guard against those possibilities. You do avoid water for this reason, don't you? Also, don't forget that airborne nitrogen dioxide can act as a catalyst for oxidization of sulphur dioxide which does produce "acid rain" - aka sulphuric acid. That does happen. So are you avoiding rain to avoid the possibility that one day that stuff becomes really, really, concentrated? If you are living your life according to "possibilities", I trust that you are?

But all of that is moot, and I'll explain why. If you are living based on possibilities then how are you protecting yourself from the uncertainty that that solid pavement suddenly isn't? I mean, it is "possible" that that might happen, right?

Now of course you aren't living according to those possibilities. I hope you don't mind my making a personal assumption, but I strongly think it's possible that I am correct. Yet you are trying to get us to agree to the possibility that your god, most likely your personal and unique interpretation of such, exists when in each and every other aspect of your life, you totally ignore other possibly more likely possibilities. Why is that? I really want to understand that.

That is but one reason why I suggest that you engage in a critical examination of your arguments, and try again.

xyzzy - I have no evidence to convince you of anything. My purpose here is not to convince anyone as that is an impossible task. No mere human can convince those who hearts are hardened. I only wish to provoke you to consider thoughtfully the possibility that the Bible is true and God is real. Again, I do appeal to those who are more learned, more eloquent, and more studied than I because I know that you have the same access to them that I do. If they cannot convince you, then I certainly stand no chance in doing so. And if I convince you with reason and logic and you were to only intellectually assent, then I have still failed.

If you want to discuss issues in a way that gives me time for reflection on your questions or points and time for me to research so that I can respond with something other than "Well, that's just what I believe" or "goddidit", then let's dialogue.

Peace and grace.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

as are most of your posts are just your opinion. But my opinion is based on me actually READING the Bible multiple times and reading what many others have to say about the Bible, and I've been at this for many years now.

My Christian worldview tells me that humans were made in the image, or likeness, of God. As a mirror reflects our image, we reflect the image, or character, of God. One of the characteristics of God is goodness. Our goodness is a reflection of the goodness of the One Who made us.

Quote

So then based on this line of reasoning, our evilness would be a reflection of the evilness of the One Who made us (Yahweh), correct? I can't wait to see the backpedaling that you do on this one.

No backpedaling necessary. One, it is only your opinion that Yahweh is evil. Two, we are not perfect image reflectors. Ever been to a "Hall of Crazy Mirrors" at a fair or circus? There are mirrors that make tall, skinny people look short and fat, or distorted in other ways. Even though we can recognize some familiar features of ourselves in these mirrors (i.e. the color of our skin and hair), we know that those images are not a complete and accurate reflection of us.

Quote

Quote

my Christian worldview tells me that we are all flawed, none are "good" (Romans 3:23)

Quote

Whose fault is that?

Quote

...the One Who made us..

God created man, and "it was good." Man was originally created good, then he chose not to be. So it was Adam and Eve's fault.

Quote

Quote

and even the good things we do are as filthy menstrual rags before a holy and righteous God. (Isaiah 64:6).

Quote

So they are a reflection of the things that God does that are as filthy menstrual rags?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and think "good" of you, that you are not trolling.

The good things that God does are pure, holy, and righteous. Man has no innate goodness, none of his own. Any goodness that man has is man attempting to imitate God. But in comparison to the good that God does, man's "righteous works" are actually filthy.

Quote

Also, these..

Quote

holy and righteous

Absolutely meaningless words. These tell me what about Yahweh, exactly?

The biblical Christian explanation: Holy means that God is unlike us. His essense is purely good. When He does anything, it is within His character of being holy, so that whatever He does is "right," or righteous.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In your opinion who are these others helping god create man?

INHO, and that of many, many theologians over the centuries, it refers to the trinitarian nature of God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - it is God communicating within the Godhead.

The Hebrew word elohim, translated as "God" or "god" or "god" (let's open up another can of worms - I'm such a masochist) elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, is a plural noun used with a singular verb. It happens in many places, so it is not thought to be a mistake but purposeful. Some say the plurality of the noun in the creation passages is to emphasize God's greatness and others say it is the first intimation of the Trinity.

I am a trichotomist - I believe man is body, soul, and spirit, so naturally it is easy for me to see that the soul of man corresponds with God the Father, the body of man corresponds with God the Son, and the spirit of man corresponds with God the Holy Spirit.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

Have another look at that question you innocently pose...

First, it pre-supposes a deity of some sort, probably the tribal god Yahweh, so the term for that is "a loaded question." The person who responds has to assume there is a god of some sort.

Now, the person who responds will think of a god that they imagine. That will not be the same as the god you imagine and you will then hit them with well-prepared arguments about your particular personal concept of god but make it seem that it is not a concept, but reality.

I suspect that you intended to slip past the meaning that you will later defend. You mean:

Is the biblical concept of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to the concept of God possible?

Yet this is a "non-question". The only concept anyone can have of a god, is what is written about him with alleged authority.

In your case, this is the concept of Yahweh based on the bible and as seen by you.

I suspect that you will say that we have subjective opinions on all we see about us. To a degree, this is so. My idea of a tree will differ from yours. However, we have both seen, and probably climbed a tree, so we have a common experience.

Neither of us have seen a god and therefore our ideas as to the concept of god, for there can be no direct experience of a god, will vary.

All in all, your question is a little deceptive, isn't it?

« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 05:48:28 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

I only want to raise the question among atheists: Is the biblical worldview of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to God possible?

Have another look at that question you innocently pose...

First, it pre-supposes a deity of some sort, probably the tribal god Yahweh, so the term for that is "a loaded question." The person who responds has to assume there is a god of some sort.

Now, the person who responds will think of a god that they imagine. That will not be the same as the god you imagine and you will then hit them with arguments, well-prepared about your particular god.

I suspect that you intended to slip past the meaning that you will later defend, that you mean:

Is the biblical concept of God, creation, man, and man's relationship to the concept of God possible?

Yet this is a "non-question". The only concept anyone can have of a god, it what is written about him with alleged authority.

In your case, this is the concept of Yahweh based on the bible and as seen by you.

I suspect that you will say that we have subjective opinions on all we see about us. To a degree, this is so. My idea of a tree will differ from yours. However, we have both seen, and probably climbed a tree, so we have a common experience.

Neither of us have seen a god and therefore our ideas as to the concept of god (for there can be no direct experience of a god, will vary.

All in all, your question is a little deceptive, isn't it?

No, but I'm sure you wish it was.

There is enough information in the Christian Bible to come up with a consensus of the deity that I and millions for the past two thousand years have worshiped. Sure, there are variations in some doctrines (i.e. infant baptism vs. believer's baptism) but if you are in doubt of the concept of Yahweh that I am discussing, then just grab a copy of the Apostle's Creed and start with that. If you want to have a discussion to clarify even further, then good, as long as you are honest about getting a clear concept so that you can then decide whether that deity is possible or not.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

The "us" is God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. It's an allusion to the New Testament.

Sheesh.

Maybe he never heard before, or have you had this conversation with him before?

Do God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost have conversations amongst themselves or are they one single entity? If they are one single entity are they similar to the 3 headed knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Logged

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -Emo Philips

The "us" is God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. It's an allusion to the New Testament.

Sheesh.

Maybe he never heard before, or have you had this conversation with him before?

Last time I asked that question I was told god was talking to the angels. I believe that was on another forum.

Which makes more since then god talking to himself. Although I talk to myself all the time.... so who knows..I think it is El speaking to Baal, Anat, and maybe even Yahweh. Until the tribe of Yahweh took power and rewrote the scriptures.

There is enough information in the Christian Bible to come up with a consensus of the deity that I and millions for the past two thousand years have worshiped.

No. There is no consensus. Your question genuinely is deceptive - as I say it pre-supposes a god and a god in the image you have created. You do really mean "a concept of God," don't you?

Quote

Sure, there are variations in some doctrines

Now this is what is called condescendingly batting away the opposition with a generalised concession and minimising the importance of that difference. -> here's the scrap from the rich man's table: (i.e. infant baptism vs. believer's baptism) Ha! who cares, eh? Splash the buggers with water - that'll impress 'em.

But you ask 3 co-religionists what they think of a difficult verse or about and you will receive 3 different answers, none of which is your answer[1]. And so it is. I'm sure you read my "tree" analogy.

Quote

but if you are in doubt of the concept of Yahweh that I am discussing, then just grab a copy of the Apostle's Creed and start with that.

I must say that I have to keep on my toes to watch for all theses little rhetorical devices you throw in.

"The Apostle's Creed"? Really? And that speaks to all unambiguously? You know as well as I do that the specialised vocabulary of religion is broadly ill-defined and means what you want it to mean.

I mean, "What is "hell?" Books and dogma is written upon that subject alone. It is no longer the Hell that the 17th century peasant knew, is it?

Additionally, it really does not define, in any meaningful way any of the characters it names in it. No more does it explain anything nor does it speak to any justification of any actions or proposed actions by the main characters. Why is Jesus coming to kill 1/3rd of mankind?

It really does not help a lot in answering your (or if you'll accept my amendments, my) question

If you handed that to a Martian, he would just look at you and ask you, "What is this concept of God"? And a bright Martian would comment on the internal inconsistence of the Bible: man's guide to the concept of God.

Quote

If you want to have a discussion to clarify even further, then good, as long as you are honest about getting a clear concept so that you can then decide whether that deity is possible or not.

A lot of people on this forum certainly claim to know that God does not exist. I wonder how that is possible. Whenever I ask them how they know God is not real, it's nothing more than talking in circles.

They assume the universe doesn't need a Creator.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

A lot of people on this forum certainly claim to know that God does not exist. I wonder how that is possible. Whenever I ask them how they know God is not real, it's nothing more than talking in circles.

They assume the universe doesn't need a Creator.

To know for certain that God does not exist, one would have to have all knowledge. If one has all knowledge, then one would be God by definition. If one who has all knowledge denies his own existence, then he couldn't be God.

But I don't think that we have to worry too much about anyone on the Forum having all knowledge, though I would like for myself and even for a few others of both sides to have more knowledge.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

A lot of people on this forum certainly claim to know that God does not exist. I wonder how that is possible. Whenever I ask them how they know God is not real, it's nothing more than talking in circles.

They assume the universe doesn't need a Creator.

To know for certain that God does not exist, one would have to have all knowledge. If one has all knowledge, then one would be God by definition. If one who has all knowledge denies his own existence, then he couldn't be God.

But I don't think that we have to worry too much about anyone on the Forum having all knowledge, though I would like for myself and even for a few others of both sides to have more knowledge.

It's refreshing to have a rational and sensible person on these boards.

Granted some atheists seem rational and sensible, but the majority of them are the same ho-hum types.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

If we all did bad things and nothing happened to us as a result of doing these bad things, then what's the point?

There is no inherent value on human life if God does not exist. We are just wandering blobs of chemicals. Nothing wrong with destroying blobs of chemicals unless we have an inherent value on our lives given to us by God.

Just the other day an atheist on here said they killed a spider, which is also a blob of chemicals. It's OK to kill some blobs of chemicals but not other blobs of chemicals.

In an atheistic worldview, humans are no more important than cockroaches.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I think it is El speaking to Baal, Anat, and maybe even Yahweh. Until the tribe of Yahweh took power and rewrote the scriptures.

I agree. The Israelites' religion drew heavily upon Canaanite polytheism, and there are traces of it all through the Old Testament.

Furthermore, if Jesus was Yahweh incarnate and Yahweh was one of the sons of El, it casts "Eli Eli lema sabachthani?" (Matthew 27:46) in a whole new light.

H2O can be water, ice, and steam. Think of the 3 persons of God like that. It's certainly not irrational that water, ice and steam all exist in different states.

This example is good to start with, but one reason I don't use that example too often is that it can lead to modalism, such as in the United Pentacostal Church, which believes God is either the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit, but not all three at the same time. (Different "modes" but same God)

I also think of an egg as an example. There is the shell, the "white," and the yolk. All three are "egg" - egg shell, egg yolk, egg white - at the same time. Three different manifestations at the same time but only one egg. They share in "eggness" (essence) but have different expressions of that eggness.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

If we all did bad things and nothing happened to us as a result of doing these bad things, then what's the point?

There is no inherent value on human life if God does not exist. We are just wandering blobs of chemicals. Nothing wrong with destroying blobs of chemicals unless we have an inherent value on our lives given to us by God.

Just the other day an atheist on here said they killed a spider, which is also a blob of chemicals. It's OK to kill some blobs of chemicals but not other blobs of chemicals.

In an atheistic worldview, humans are no more important than cockroaches.

Many atheists in this forum tend to place a value on human life - at least the lives of "innocent" Canaanite children.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin